User talk:Федоров

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words are phrases that are intentionally evasive, ambiguous or misleading.
Please re-frame from this sort of suggestive editing. UNIAN is a respected news agency. If you don't have proof it is not it should be treated like all other press agency, whether they are based in Kyiv or in Los Angeles. By the way: An overwhelming majority of Ukrainians have a good impressions of Russia, vice versa not. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  14:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I got the idea you accused the whole Ukrainian press of being unreliable, glad to see I was wrong. I would not have a problem if you would have said "According to UNIAN" but dragging the whole Ukrainian press into it I thought was a bit overboard and looked suggestive to me (it looked to me that you suggested they can't be trusted). You did not have that intend so all is good! —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Map for the 2008 South Ossetia War Article
I think you can try and remove the Naval Blockade line from the map. So far no one has objected. If no one objects for a reasonable period of time, we can place the edited version, the one without the naval blockade, into the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Naval Task Force in this section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war#Russian-South-Ossetian_and_Russian-Abkhazian_order_of_battle, is out of date. Can you update it? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sevastopol
Note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source by itself. The history section of the Russian version seems well sourced, but you still have to bring an external source (perhaps copy one from ruwiki, I'm not sure which one describes the data you edited in). --Illythr (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sevmash
I recently expanded the article Sevmash. What do you think of it? Do you know any interesting info that could be added to the article? I've heard that Sevmash is now part of United Shipbuilding Corporation, but I couldn't find a definite confirmation for this. Do you know something about this? Thanks. Offliner (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He's Velikiy
FYI, if you don't already know, it's common (here, anyhow) to refer to ships by the last part of names (hence Washington rather than George Washigton or Ward rather than Aaron Ward, so it's not "tinkering with correct facts" or not knowing the name.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice try
Your examples easily prove my point. "Velikiy" is not a surname. It is a title that is a suffix. Thus, it is still incorrect to use it for short reference.Федоров (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Borey class SSBN.svg
Приветствую. Как вы себе видите цитату, подтверждающую это изображение? В чём состоит претензия к нему? Можете ответить здесь. --Rave (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

От меня лично претензии нет. Но Ваше изображение самозделанно а не привлеченно с другова издания. Как я понимаю по правилам Вики что Вы вставели не допускается.Федоров (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Victor class submarine
Здравствуйте.

Не знаю, как там "Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies 1718-1990, Norman Polmar and Jurrien Noot, Naval Institute Press, 1991", но многие отечественные источники, в том числе и сайт "Штурм глубины" предоставляет иные данные:

Проект 671 - 15 единиц

Проект 671 РТМ - 26 единиц

Если не трудно, то представьте пожалуйста список всех субмарин упомянутых проектов.

С уважением, Павел. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paska rotor (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Советую посмотреть разделы про проектам 671, 671РТ, и 671РТМ в русско-язычном Вики. Там данные более достоверные и упомянают что 671РТМ(К) это под-класс 671РТМ.  Всего выло построенно - 16 671, 7 671РТ, и 26 671РТМ. Федоров (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Russian cruiser Varyag (1983)
Howdy,

You added this sentence:


 * "This visit also coincided with President Medvedev visiting Silicon Valley and he once again visited the Varyag."

1) Saying "once again" without there being a previous mention of a visit in the text body of the article (the image doesn't count) is poor editing. Either delete the phrase, or add when he visited the ship before.

2) Tell the reader who the person is, assume ignorance on the part of the reader.

3) Can you please add a reference for his visit, this time or any other?

4) Is the use of the word "and" in the sentence correct? They seem to be to unconnected complete thoughts or statements, and should either not be joined with a conjunction (the word "and"), or some punctuation should be added ("," or ";").  Example: " Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was visiting Silicon Valley at the same time as the ship visited San Francisco. On June ??, he made a visit to the Varyag."

What do you think?

THNKS. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I think you are doing good work here. You guys probably know each other, do you? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Civility & Lt. Cmdr discussion
Could you please take a few minutes to review WP:CIV? From the current discussion, Talk:Lieutenant Commander your comment you don't know your services and should shut up was rude and I would like you to delete that from the discussion. Mocking another editors abbreviation and putting words in all caps to make your point was not WP:AGF either.

In the future, could you please assume good faith from other editors and be aware good Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, verifiable sources; if you have such a source for your assertions about how junior officers should be addressed, please add it to the article(s). Thanks! Kirk (talk)

Canonization of the Romanovs
Greetings! Your English is clearly much better than my Russian, so please forgive my typing to you in English.

Your recent edit "Rearranged sentence to complete accountability of executed members and retainers of imperial family" appears erroneous to me because the sentence belonged where it had been. The Moscow Patriarchate canonized none of the servants while ROCOR did canonize them, including, apparently, two who were not Orthodox, presumably erroneously since ROCOR is very adverse to ecumenism and oft re-baptizes converts from Catholicism and Protestantism. Before your edit, the sentence had been in a paragraph describing the Moscow Patriarchate’s canonization (where it belongs, but could use further clarification) but now it is in the a paragraph about the canonization by ROCOR and it contradicts the second sentence of that paragraph, “They were canonized along with their servants …” (which contains the inaccuracy “who had been killed along with them”).

According to an Interfax article 15 April 2008, the Patriarchate and ROCOR were discussing the issue. I don’t know how things proceeded, but I do expect to see Metropolitan Hilarion a few months hence and, if I do, I’ll enquire. Meanwhile, I’m disinclined to undo your edit because a lot of other clean-up is in order.

Фотiй Викентьевичъ Липсiосъ Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Фотiй Викентьевичъ!

Thank you for your comment. While I understand the point regarding whether we are talking about ROCOR or the Moscow Patriarchate, I see no contradiction with the phrase "along with their servants" because the list of canonized persons includes non-members of the imperial family. The point is that this list of "others" is further separated into those who were Orthodox and those who were not. ROCOR is aware of this distinction and, as a very conservative organization (no less so than the Patriarchate), was not at all likely to have canonized non-Orthodox. Also, today ROCOR and the Patriarchate have reconciled and their views on such issues should coincide.Федоров (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Kirov class battlecruiser
According to the page history, you are responsible for moving the page Kirov class battlecruiser to its new location of Russian Kirov class heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser. While I do admire the attempt to be correct in the classification of these ships the fact of the matter is that the page was moved without a request for move, and as a result of this the page is now incorrectly named insofar as current guidelines governing the naming of ship and ship classes are concerned. As a result of this I have petitioned for the page to be returned to its original name. Since it is my belief that all parties privy to the event be informed of the potential change, I am leaving this message here to inform you of my request to move the article back to the title Kirov class batltecruiser, and to offer you a chance to voice your own opinion on the move, which you may do here. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Montreux convention
I've posted in the talk page citations from the Montreux convention which support the text that you reverted.

Roadrunner (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say a few other things about our discussion here. First, I think it is understandable why people can see the classification as an attempt to get around the treaty - it just seems a little too "convenient". I myself am not entirely convinced that the restrictions didn't factor into the decision to refer to the ships as they are, but your input as an expert is very convincing. Honestly, I have no other reason for doubting you than what I had read Wikipedia previously. Second, thanks for being understanding and not taking any of this the wrong way. I was overly lengthy in my explanation and the question about the missile designations was nit-picky on my part. Third, I have to ask, what is your "direct and continuing interaction with the leadership of the Soviet/Russian Navy", I am quite curious about it. Finally, seeing as you are part of WikiProject Russia, I can offer you another project you might be interested in: WikiProject Military history. -Noha307 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Forget the last part, I just noticed that you already were part of that project. -Noha307 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Soviet and Russian subs
Hello, just wondering if you'll consider the possibility of working with me on Soviet and Russian sub articles. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History invitation
 Hello,, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A Suggestion
Since you seem experienced on the subject, I was hoping you could be of some help over here specifically regarding the second section on the talk page. -Noha307 (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

B-351
Including Indian boats? In fact, Orzel was never in Soviet service, in contrast to the informations provided by some Russian-language websites. In case of Orzel, B-351 was just an interim number until the ship will be transferred to Poland, so it cannot be written, that Orzel is "ex"-B-351 --Matrek (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. When you recently edited Nicholas II of Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iveria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

name sequence
Hello, please look at the source. It says: "Two conventionally powered carriers of a new class with approximately the dimensions mentioned were, however, fitting out in the Black Sea at the time: Tbilisi--later Leonid Brezhnev, now Admiral Flota Sovietskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov--and Riga (thereafter Varyag)." So it might appear that Riga is the initial name of Chinese aircraft carrier ex-Varyag. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Re . So what is the name sequence of Varyag per S.Balakin & V.Zablotskiy? It is still sourced as Riga -> Varyag per nwcr_flightops in Varyag page. Should it be fixed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Military academies in Russia
Regarding your language edit reversing my edit in this article, would you mind please clarifying? We need to have one standard in the article, and what I did was clean up all the varying ones and lock it down on one spelling. You've now reversed it to a mix of American and British English. Would you mind please explaining why? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia is an open edit endeavor and not an exercise in literary correctness. If we can't tolerate a mix of British and American English then let's just go with the American version.Федоров (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The rule you want is WP:ENGVAR. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ministry of Defence (Russia)
Would you kindly please explain this edit? I'm angry enough to want to block you for vandalism !!- I spent hours and hours creating that chart and carefully linking it, from the best US DOD Russia-watching source there (was).

Do you not understand - we are not here to WP:RECENTISM maintain a rolling news report about the structure of organisations !! LEAVE THE OLD CHARTS IN THE ARTICLE, and **ADD** the new charts as well!! The article's barely 25k !! It can handle being expanded, and we can even if necessary create 'History of the Russian Ministry of Defence' or 'Structure of the Russian Ministry of Defence' (to match Organizational structure of the United States Department of Defense) if it's considered to be too long.

DON'T REMOVE GOOD SOLID SOURCED INFORMATION MERELY BECAUSE IT'S EIGHT YEARS OLD !! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that you added the dates of currency to the two tables I guess we can all live with it. If I take your comment correctly then presumably each article in Wikipedia can become an endless list of information - sometime repeating what was previously posted (but with new source citations) and sometimes stating something totally different, but perhaps more accurate. Of course, in all cases the information must have citations to confirm that it comes from "reputable sources". Then there is the issue of what constitutes a "reputable source". Is a source reputable because a significant number of people cite it or is it reputable because the information it provides is verifiable and accurate. I have attempted to make the case for verifiable accuracy before and was admonished by self-appointed keepers of the Wikipedia that generally repeated citations - even of inaccurate information - trump the verifiable and accurate but less popular. And, by the way, it took me not less time than perhaps it took you to enter the out of date data, to generate the more currently accurate presentation of the Russian Defense Minister organization.Федоров (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fedorov, I understand your frustrations, but did you bother to check the authors of the work I cited? Scott and Scott were the very best of the U.S. military 'kremlinologists' of the Cold War. The sources - repeatedly line by line by line, in hundreds of detailed pages - are open source MOD newspapers - KZ, Armiy Sbnornik, NVO, etc, etc. I'd quote them all but I do not know how to spell the Russian newspaper names of the top of my head. These were the two that published 'The Armed Forces of the USSR' in three editions by Westview Press. Better still, do you have your email-this-user function enabled? I will send you the two volumes I have and you can make your own assessment of the source. Bluntly, I trust your word on the Soviet Armed Forces, and if you do not trust these sources as I do after I e-mail them to you, you have my full permission to delete the entire section. Hope you'll be happy to receive these documents. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The other value of the two tables is that it enables one to make time-series comparisons. You know *far* better than me probably the enormous bureaucratic bickering in the AFRF that has moved the Space Forces hither and you, dissolved the Main Command of the Ground Forces and recreated it, moved Army Aviation back and forth etc. The structure has changed, and changed, and changed, and keeps changing faster than comparable Western institutions. With snap-shots of different time periods one can for example identify that Army Gen (now retired) Pankov has held on at least eight years as State Secretary of the MOD, and probably needs the Ru:wiki article translated pronto, given that he's an enormously important bureaucratic actor at the rough level of a U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense or higher.. and so on and so on. Without charts at different times there is no way to compare changes in the institution. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I know the Scotts and haven't questioned the accuracy of their information. I read all of the sources that they and their researchers use. I don't need translations. Also, I have no issues with piling on successive changes in the MOD roster and organizational chart. My comments addressed the much larger issues of Wikipedia writ large and many of the Soviet/Russian military pages that I have worked with.Федоров (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like your input in a discussion
Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Your political beliefs
What are your political, socio-economic, and philosophical beliefs, personally I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Proletarian Banner (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)